Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Navy_Pete]

Yes.

We are regularly deploying our ships to the Eastern Med, Baltic Sea, Norwegian Sea, Sea of Japan, Strait of Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea, northern Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa, East Africa, the Caribbean, and before the war, the Black Sea. Our ships conduct coutne piracy patrols, counter narcotics patrols, counter smuggling patrols, ISR missions, NEOs, HADR, and just general "shows of force" in the face of both the Chinese and Russians.

By comparison, some other countries with bigger navies than ours spend far more time in their home waters than we do.

If that's not "projecting power" I don't know what is.

Except our ROEs is generally self defence and.... that's it.

We're projecting the appearance of power for the most part. With clapped out Tempos with rims and ground effects, with highly compromised survivability for a warship and skeleton crews.

If push comes to shove, we might provide a warning screen for others, but I guess they could at least swing by in a foreign port visit and play video games, have a few beers and check out the wifi.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yes.

We are regularly deploying our ships to the Eastern Med, Baltic Sea, Norwegian Sea, Sea of Japan, Strait of Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea, northern Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa, East Africa, the Caribbean, and before the war, the Black Sea. Our ships conduct coutne piracy patrols, counter narcotics patrols, counter smuggling patrols, ISR missions, NEOs, HADR, and just general "shows of force" in the face of both the Chinese and Russians.

By comparison, some other countries with bigger navies than ours spend far more time in their home waters than we do.

If that's not "projecting power" I don't know what is.

We are one of only about 10 navies world wide that are capable of and routinely power project globally.

Once we get tankers back, it will get even better.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes.

We are regularly deploying our ships to the Eastern Med, Baltic Sea, Norwegian Sea, Sea of Japan, Strait of Taiwan, South China Sea, East China Sea, northern Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa, East Africa, the Caribbean, and before the war, the Black Sea. Our ships conduct coutne piracy patrols, counter narcotics patrols, counter smuggling patrols, ISR missions, NEOs, HADR, and just general "shows of force" in the face of both the Chinese and Russians.

By comparison, some other countries with bigger navies than ours spend far more time in their home waters than we do.

If that's not "projecting power" I don't know what is.

With the greatest respect, I think we are debating degrees of power and force and how much influence we can exert on events.

I give credit for the ability to deploy at range, and the regularity with which it is done. But I feel that the scale is lacking.

We could do so much more. In my opinion.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm not suggesting convoys and maritime resupply won't be used, I'm simply pointing out that ships sailing in an ASW screen are unlikely to be the primary ASW asset used to protect the convoy, and that a jack-of-all-trades ship is sufficient for the task. Remember that our big buddy down south has a boat load of ASW A/C, and SSNs specifically for the task.

If the war becomes more drawn out, we can smash out a modern corvette built to modified civilian standards, like we did back in the 40s. Like most surface combatants in WWII, our CSCs will end up doing other tasks that can't be done with cheap and cheerful ASW sacrificial lambs.

I'm not arguing that ASW isn't important, I'm just arguing that the WWII/Cold War mindset of the RCN being an ASW only force is dated. When we have 15 CSCs in service, we will have a fleet of surface combatants close to equal to that of the RN. Compared to the USA and China our fleet is nothing, compared to most of the rest of the world 15 CSCs will be a powerful fleet.

Also, to circle back to my point about the CSC being trade protection cruisers, the likelihood of a massive war on the scale of WWII is still quite small, but the likelihood of us needing to contribute more independent combatants to the role of trade protection is quite high. Canada is far better off planning for the likely scenario, rather than putting all of our eggs in the "maybe, but we're likely all dead from a nuclear apocalypse by that stage anyway" basket.

Global logistics moves on the oceans.

A major conflict kicking off between the west and China is a solid possibility, some stuff I have been hearing is that China is expected to move on Taiwan before the next US Fed election. If they do, the Yanks are going in, and I suspect we will follow.

Once/if the PAC becomes a battle field again our merchantmen will be be marshalled and the convoy system reestablished to move the required material and people across the ocean.

Think of it like a degree with a major in ASW and a minor in everything else.

Lets agree on this: I hope were both wrong and we don't ever have to find out.

 

[KevinB]

While our ships hulls may be in rough shape, our frigate have the best weapons ans sensors available on the market. We even have some stuff that's better than what the Americans have, and our ships are superior in many ways to what, for example, the French have in the same ass. CSC will be next level, and as someone already pointed out, if they come with the weapons and sensor load out as currently design, they will be one of the most powerful warships in the world for their class. 15 of THOSE is more than an respectable contribution for a country of our population and Gdp. In fact PER CAPITA, Canada's 12 frigates place us at 5th in the world for number of Frigates.

And were for Destroyers, Cruisers, Amphibious Assault Ships, Aircraft Carriers and SSN’s. Oh yeah 0.

 

[Happy Guy]

It would be foolhardy to compare Canada's naval forces to our major allies: the US, UK, France or even the Aus. The current and I daresay the future near and immediate Cdn gov'ts / DND will have a significant and difficult time to: (1) attract, recruit, train and retain RCN pers up to sufficient numbers to even man the current fleet; (2) fix the defence procurement system so it can provide equipment in a timely and efficient manner - DND can't even spend it allocated budget because of lack of experience procurement staff and cumbersome regulatory regulations; and (3) confirm what it wants DND to do - having to provide balanced expeditionary cbt capability for the RCN, CA and RCAF is unrealistic given the current budget and aft mentioned problems.

If DND is able to solve or make some positive headway to resolving the above mentioned problems and the gov't issues a realistic Defence White Paper, with the appropriate long term and sustained funding then one can talk about future RCN capabilities, whether it be destroyers, amphibious assault ships or SSK (diesel-electric or AIP or hybrid). I don't think that the RCN will ever have cruisers or aircraft carriers again unless the gov't demands it and the RCN can man and sustain the fleet.

 

[GR66]

While our ships hulls may be in rough shape, our frigate have the best weapons ans sensors available on the market. We even have some stuff that's better than what the Americans have, and our ships are superior in many ways to what, for example, the French have in the same ass. CSC will be next level, and as someone already pointed out, if they come with the weapons and sensor load out as currently design, they will be one of the most powerful warships in the world for their class. 15 of THOSE is more than an respectable contribution for a country of our population and Gdp. In fact PER CAPITA, Canada's 12 frigates place us at 5th in the world for number of Frigates.

No complaints about the capability of the CSCs. But it's 15. If we end up in a real shooting war with China and/or Russia it's simply not enough. We might be good in comparison to other countries (that are also woefully lacking in numbers) in per capita numbers but what about in terms of maritime domain we have to defend?

From Wikipedia:

The List of Royal Canadian Navy ships of the Second World War lists over 1,140 surface warships, submarines and auxiliary vessels in service during the war.

That's with a population of 12 million.

What we need in peacetime is not what we will need in a war. And the difference is that we don't have the capability to rapidly build modern warships quickly like we did in WW2.

China by comparison is building 20 warships PER YEAR. So exceeding our entire planned fleet of CSCs (whenever we actually get them) by 33% every year. It's almost like they know that war may be coming and they need a much larger fleet in order to win.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Take the best 3 Halifax's when the last CSC replaces them, give them a refit and mothball them for 5 years and then start building a CSC replacement, then mothball the first 3 CSC's. That gives you a bit of leeway to quickly expand the fleet.

 

[Lumber]

No complaints about the capability of the CSCs. But it's 15. If we end up in a real shooting war with China and/or Russia it's simply not enough. We might be good in comparison to other countries (that are also woefully lacking in numbers) in per capita numbers but what about in terms of maritime domain we have to defend?

It's plenty enough given that we would be supporting, not leading, the naval battle. Based on our population, GDP, and the reality of our geopolitical situation, a contribution of a TG's worth of CSCs would be pulling our weight.

From Wikipedia:

That's with a population of 12 million.

What we need in peacetime is not what we will need in a war. And the difference is that we don't have the capability to rapidly build modern warships quickly like we did in WW2.

I absolutely hate when people bring up that Canada had the "3rd largest navy after WW2". It's hogwash. First, in order to get even close to that number, you have to count every single auxiliary vessel all the way down to in-harbour whalers. Second, within about 6 weeks of the end of the war in Europe, almost every Corvette in the Canadian Navy was mothballed. We went from 4th (at best) biggest "navy" to almost nothing in 6 weeks. In other words, we may have had lot of ships, but they weren't proper warships, and we never established the infrastructure to maintain it; it was temporary. Go read Mark Milner.

China by comparison is building 20 warships PER YEAR. So exceeding our entire planned fleet of CSCs (whenever we actually get them) by 33% every year. It's almost like they know that war may be coming and they need a much larger fleet in order to win.

Canada's population is 2.7% that of China's. Canada's GDP is 8.6% that of Chinas. China, unlike Canada, is not only seeking to project power abroad, but has very near security concerns for which having a large navy is important (i.e. they are surrounded by advisories; we are not) .

 

[Kirkhill]

No complaints about the capability of the CSCs. But it's 15. If we end up in a real shooting war with China and/or Russia it's simply not enough. We might be good in comparison to other countries (that are also woefully lacking in numbers) in per capita numbers but what about in terms of maritime domain we have to defend?

From Wikipedia:

That's with a population of 12 million.

What we need in peacetime is not what we will need in a war. And the difference is that we don't have the capability to rapidly build modern warships quickly like we did in WW2.

China by comparison is building 20 warships PER YEAR. So exceeding our entire planned fleet of CSCs (whenever we actually get them) by 33% every year. It's almost like they know that war may be coming and they need a much larger fleet in order to win.

Also from Wikipedia:

Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

85 men to man a hull cutting the water at 30 km/h and with a range of 6500 km at 22 km/h.

Area of influence based on weapons

The 4" main gun on the foredeck - 12 km
It fired a 14 kg shell at 800 m/s to 12 km (time of flight >15 secs) at 10 to 12 rounds per minute

Machine guns
1x Vickers Twin 50 - 4 km
1x Lewis Twin 303 - 3 km

Depth Charge Throwers - 40 m

Depth Charges - 0 m (rolled off the stern).

Some 120 of the ships of the WW2 RCN were those corvettes. They required about 10,000 sailors to man them.


How many sailors would you spend on each ship to achieve the same effect? Would you bother?
How many modern ships would you need to achieve the same effect? Would you bother?

 

[DBNSG]

Also from Wikipedia:

Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

85 men to man a hull cutting the water at 30 km/h and with a range of 6500 km at 22 km/h.

Area of influence based on weapons

The 4" main gun on the foredeck - 12 km
It fired a 14 kg shell at 800 m/s to 12 km (time of flight >15 secs) at 10 to 12 rounds per minute

Machine guns
1x Vickers Twin 50 - 4 km
1x Lewis Twin 303 - 3 km

Depth Charge Throwers - 40 m

Depth Charges - 0 m (rolled off the stern).

Some 120 of the ships of the WW2 RCN were those corvettes. They required about 10,000 sailors to man them.


How many sailors would you spend on each ship to achieve the same effect? Would you bother?
How many modern ships would you need to achieve the same effect? Would you bother?

How many Cyclones and P-8's could deliver the same effect?

 

[Kirkhill]

Data extracted from Wikipedia

List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does this look like a navy capable of projecting power beyond the 1st Island Chain? I think it is set up to operate within its "Home Waters" including the Nine Dash Line.

PLA Navy Fleet Build
Commissioning Year	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
Nuclear Ballistic Missile Subs					1	1
Conventional Attack Subs		2	1			2
Conventional Ballistic Missile Subs	2012	Last one built
Nuclear Attack Subs	2017	Last one built
Destroyers	4	1	5	10	4	3
Frigates		3				2
Corvettes				7	18	5
Missile Boats	2004	Last one built
Minesweeper	2014	Last one built
Aircraft Carrier						1
LHD			1	2
ATD					2	1
Landing Craft						7
AOR					1	1

 

[Lumber]

Data extracted from Wikipedia

List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Does this look like a navy capable of projecting power beyond the 1st Island Chain? I think it is set up to operate within its "Home Waters" including the Nine Dash Line.

PLA Navy Fleet Build
Commissioning Year	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
Nuclear Ballistic Missile Subs					1	1
Conventional Attack Subs		2	1			2
Conventional Ballistic Missile Subs	2012	Last one built
Nuclear Attack Subs	2017	Last one built
Destroyers	4	1	5	10	4	3
Frigates		3				2
Corvettes				7	18	5
Missile Boats	2004	Last one built
Minesweeper	2014	Last one built
Aircraft Carrier						1
LHD			1	2
ATD					2	1
Landing Craft						7
AOR					1	1

Yes. Based on the number of replenishment oilers, they could field 2 carrier strike groups (soon 3) and an additional dozen or so task groups with 5 major surface combatants and accompanying submarines (minus however many ships are in refit).

 

[Kirkhill]

How many Cyclones and P-8's could deliver the same effect?

From Encyclopedia Britannica

In World War II Germany built 1,162 U-boats, of which 785 were destroyed and the remainder surrendered (or were scuttled to avoid surrender) at the capitulation. Of the 632 U-boats sunk at sea, Allied surface ships and shore-based aircraft accounted for the great majority (246 and 245 respectively).

To be honest those numbers astonished me.
1200 U Boats.
800 Destroyed. (2/3)
600 sunk at sea. (3/4 of the kills and 1/2 of the fleet)
250 sunk by ships
250 sunk by shore based aircraft.

 

[Maxman1]

Also from Wikipedia:

Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

85 men to man a hull cutting the water at 30 km/h and with a range of 6500 km at 22 km/h.

Area of influence based on weapons

The 4" main gun on the foredeck - 12 km
It fired a 14 kg shell at 800 m/s to 12 km (time of flight >15 secs) at 10 to 12 rounds per minute

Machine guns
1x Vickers Twin 50 - 4 km
1x Lewis Twin 303 - 3 km

Depth Charge Throwers - 40 m

Depth Charges - 0 m (rolled off the stern).

Some 120 of the ships of the WW2 RCN were those corvettes. They required about 10,000 sailors to man them.


How many sailors would you spend on each ship to achieve the same effect? Would you bother?
How many modern ships would you need to achieve the same effect? Would you bother?

The Type 31 frigate has a crew of 80, top speed in excess of 28 knots (52 km/h) and a range of 9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km). It has a Bofors 57mm main gun, four Bofors 40mm L/70 secondary guns and several general purpose machine guns, an aircraft hanger and is fitted for Mk 41 VLS. Replace the main gun with a 127mm and it would be a perfect direct replacement for the Halifax class, while the CSC will be a significant step up in capabilities.

Type 31 frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GR66]

It's plenty enough given that we would be supporting, not leading, the naval battle. Based on our population, GDP, and the reality of our geopolitical situation, a contribution of a TG's worth of CSCs would be pulling our weight.

Is 15 hulls "plenty enough"? Let's say that China invades Taiwan and Russia uses that opportunity to seize the Baltic States while the West is occupied in the Pacific. We have 15 combatants. Let's say 75% (11) are available for deployment. We contribute 2 to Allied TG's in the Pacific. We contribute another two to NATO naval forces in the Atlantic (SNMG1 and SNMG2). That leaves us with 7 combatants between two coasts to patrol our own maritime domain as well as support escort duties for supply ships delivering forces/equipment/munitions, etc. to both fronts.

I absolutely hate when people bring up that Canada had the "3rd largest navy after WW2". It's hogwash. First, in order to get even close to that number, you have to count every single auxiliary vessel all the way down to in-harbour whalers. Second, within about 6 weeks of the end of the war in Europe, almost every Corvette in the Canadian Navy was mothballed. We went from 4th (at best) biggest "navy" to almost nothing in 6 weeks. In other words, we may have had lot of ships, but they weren't proper warships, and we never established the infrastructure to maintain it; it was temporary. Go read Mark Milner.

Well let's just count the more significant combatants then (from Wikipedia):

• 2 x Escort Carriers
• 2 x Light Cruisers
• 43 x Destroyers
• 69 x Frigates
• 123 x Corvettes

So that's 239 combatant vessels.

And let's be clear. If you read my posts it's not like I'm advocating for the RCN to get to anything like those numbers. I know it's an "apples to refrigerators" comparison in terms of technology, capability and level of national involvement between WW2 and a possible war between China/Russia and the West but it does illustrate that major naval operations do require mass as well as capability.

My proposal was to increase our manned combatant fleet from 15 to 24 by cutting back the CSCs from 15 to 12 and use the reduced manning there to partially offset the additional requirements of replacing the 12 x Kingston's with 12 x more capable Frigate/Corvette-type combatants.

Additionally we would want to increase our MPA fleet in support and invest in UAVs, USVs and UUVs to augment our manned fleets.

I'd also support the idea mentioned up by @Colin Parkinson of possibly maintaining some of the Halifax-class ships as a Reserve Fleet. Say for example each of the three NSS shipyards take one (or two) of the Halifax-class ships when they are decommissioned and complete a major repair/refit to restore them to a usable condition. This could maintain work and workers at the yards between completion of their new builds and the next batch of replacement vessels.

Canada's population is 2.7% that of China's. Canada's GDP is 8.6% that of Chinas. China, unlike Canada, is not only seeking to project power abroad, but has very near security concerns for which having a large navy is important (i.e. they are surrounded by advisories; we are not) .

The economic success of the collective "West" is founded on the free flow of goods around the World. And the vast majority of that trade is on the oceans. The threat posed by major powers that seek disrupt and control that free flow of goods is a direct threat to Canada and the rest of the West, so we are in effect "surrounded by adversaries" so long at they threaten the global trade that keeps us prosperous.

 

[YZT580]

Is 15 hulls "plenty enough"? Let's say that China invades Taiwan and Russia uses that opportunity to seize the Baltic States while the West is occupied in the Pacific. We have 15 combatants. Let's say 75% (11) are available for deployment. We contribute 2 to Allied TG's in the Pacific. We contribute another two to NATO naval forces in the Atlantic (SNMG1 and SNMG2). That leaves us with 7 combatants between two coasts to patrol our own maritime domain as well as support escort duties for supply ships delivering forces/equipment/munitions, etc. to both fronts.

Well let's just count the more significant combatants then (from Wikipedia):

• 2 x Escort Carriers
• 2 x Light Cruisers
• 43 x Destroyers
• 69 x Frigates
• 123 x Corvettes

So that's 239 combatant vessels.

And let's be clear. If you read my posts it's not like I'm advocating for the RCN to get to anything like those numbers. I know it's an "apples to refrigerators" comparison in terms of technology, capability and level of national involvement between WW2 and a possible war between China/Russia and the West but it does illustrate that major naval operations do require mass as well as capability.

My proposal was to increase our manned combatant fleet from 15 to 24 by cutting back the CSCs from 15 to 12 and use the reduced manning there to partially offset the additional requirements of replacing the 12 x Kingston's with 12 x more capable Frigate/Corvette-type combatants.

Additionally we would want to increase our MPA fleet in support and invest in UAVs, USVs and UUVs to augment our manned fleets.

I'd also support the idea mentioned up by @Colin Parkinson of possibly maintaining some of the Halifax-class ships as a Reserve Fleet. Say for example each of the three NSS shipyards take one (or two) of the Halifax-class ships when they are decommissioned and complete a major repair/refit to restore them to a usable condition. This could maintain work and workers at the yards between completion of their new builds and the next batch of replacement vessels.

The economic success of the collective "West" is founded on the free flow of goods around the World. And the vast majority of that trade is on the oceans. The threat posed by major powers that seek disrupt and control that free flow of goods is a direct threat to Canada and the rest of the West, so we are in effect "surrounded by adversaries" so long at they threaten the global trade that keeps us prosperous.

Unless we are going to subcontract to every yard in Canada or overseas, by the time the 15th hull is in the water it will be time to start on the next fleet. Why not just have a standing order for one per year and improve as required: said order to be reviewed every four years. Isn't that really the intent of the NSS? At the end of 15 years you will start to replace the originals which can either be sold off, mothballed or re-furbished if we actually decide we need a larger fleet.

 

[Kirkhill]

Unless we are going to subcontract to every yard in Canada or overseas, by the time the 15th hull is in the water it will be time to start on the next fleet. Why not just have a standing order for one per year and improve as required: said order to be reviewed every four years. Isn't that really the intent of the NSS? At the end of 15 years you will start to replace the originals which can either be sold off, mothballed or re-furbished if we actually decide we need a larger fleet.

The Dutch grow food. They are good at it. And they sell a lot of it to other countries because it is good food.

But the Dutch pioneered the buying of food rather than the growing of food. Other people could grow food cheaper. The Dutch became richer because they "bought" spices low in Asia and sold them high in Europe. With the cash they bought wheat from Baltic. With their spare profits they built windmills and dykes and made land for a population increasing in size. And made some really impressive paintings as well.

If we want ships, and we can't build ships because we don't have the skills or the labour (5% unemployment is pretty close to full employment) then the solution would be to buy ships from people that can build good ships fast and sell them cheap.

Now if only we had stuff to sell that people wanted to buy....



And if we need more ships than people who want to sail in them then reduce the number of people per ship. That technology exists as well.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I can still recall being told for years that Navy up until the 2000 or so required at a minimum of 24 frigate/destroyer type of vessels.
The only thing that seems to have changed is the Navy has settled for what it can get as opposed to what it may actually need.

 

[Lumber]

I can still recall being told for years that Navy up until the 2000 or so required at a minimum of 24 frigate/destroyer type of vessels.
The only thing that seems to have changed is the Navy has settled for what it can get as opposed to what it may actually need.

The Navy will always settle for what it can get because the Navy has no real sya in what it gets.